Logic dictates that there is a God!

[PLAYER57832]

What have I said that is delusional?

everything that you have ever said in the course of this arguement.

Also, let me try to solve at least one problem here. It says somewhere in the Bible, I don't know exactly where altough I will look, that one day for God is equal to 1,000 years of human time. So it took 6,000 years for the Earth to be made.

And what I believe is that God made the Earth. Then, populated the Earth with all thses different forms of animals. Humans were the last creatures that God created. So, is it possible that God created all the animals by evolution, then made man, again through evolution. This view satisfies both the explanation from the Bible and from science.

EDIT: turns out to be in 2 Peter 3:8

PLAYERS held theory is so far out of mainstream Christianity it's not funny.

Then according to you roughly 70% of Christians are not "mainline Christians".

But she can chose to believe the lies of evolution all she wants.

And yet, the one who has trotted out lies is you. You don't even know what evolution really says, and have obviously never looked at the evidence. And you certainly don't really understand what I believe.

Maybe you would not agree with me were you to see the evidence, but at least I am not claiming to "be against" something I clearly do not understand.

[PLAYER57832]

Do not add words or meanings that are not set out in the Bible.

You claim to be following the "literal interpretation", yet insist on adding meanings.

Are you kidding me????!!!!!???? This is EXACTLY what you do when you try to give alternate explanations to what the actual text says about God creating living organisms!

It's hardly "my" view, its more like the most prevalent and long-standing view of the Bible.
Try reading even one of the links I provided. The thing is, my view IS what most Bible scholars say. But, you would have to look outside young earth sites to know that. And, of course, you will be discouraged from doing that lest you "be contaminated".

[jrl332005]

DangerBoy and jay, your view of Christianity is more like a cult than what is widely accepted by the Christian community.

[PLAYER57832]

Newsweek article: Mean Men

The Catholic sex-abuse stories emerging every day suggest that Catholics have a much bigger problem with child molestation than other denominations and the general population. Many point to peculiarities of the Catholic Church (its celibacy rules for priests, its insular hierarchy, its exclusion of women) to infer that there's something particularly pernicious about Catholic clerics that predisposes them to these horrific acts. It's no wonder that, back in 2002—when the last Catholic sex-abuse scandal was making headlines—a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll found that 64 percent of those queried thought Catholic priests "frequently'' abused children.

Yet experts say there's simply no data to support the claim at all. No formal comparative study has ever broken down child sexual abuse by denomination, and only the Catholic Church has released detailed data about its own. But based on the surveys and studies conducted by different denominations over the past 30 years, experts who study child abuse say they see little reason to conclude that sexual abuse is mostly a Catholic issue. "We don't see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else," said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "I can tell you without hesitation that we have seen cases in many religious settings, from traveling evangelists to mainstream ministers to rabbis and others."

My impression has always been that abuse occurs in all denominations/religions and very likely at about equal rates (give or take a few "anamolies", perhaps). However, what sets the Roman Catholic Church apart is their view of the Priest as being somehow "more sanctified"/closer to God than the rest. Therefore, when things like this happen, the impact is even more profound than in other churches/synogogues, etc.

Also, because the Roman Catholic church has such a strict hierarchy, is much more one unified church than, say, Protestant churches, the goofs in understanding were perpetuated. In the Protestant churches, such problems were largely confined to "one" congregation/area at a time (or in more than one mostly unrelated congregations). So, they would be big news more in a region. The Roman Catholic abuses are more of a world problem, because it is much more of one, world church.

[PLAYER57832]

DangerBoy and jay, your view of Christianity is more like a cult than what is widely accepted by the Christian community.

Except, these churches use the "Moral majority" tactic of claiming to be a "majority" when it is very, very much a minority. Since they don't really look outside their individual churches for answers, they truly believe this is the truth.

[PLAYER57832]

Ok, but that doesn't mean that Christians or any other group of religionists are stupid. Christianity happens to be a great pillar that America was formed on. There's no reason for us to just piss it all away in favor of homosexuals marrying, aborting all the babies we can, or supporting illegal aliens through entitlement programs.

If you think this is anything close to what I believe, then yoy have been getting my opinions from jay, not things I have said. I believe you might remember another rather long thread where I made it clear that I did not necessarily think homosexuality was acceptable within the Bible. I disdain abortion and have absolutely made that clear. Illegal aliens are not getting entitlements now. I know we need some limits on immigration, I just don't think the answer is armed encampments. I believe the Arizona law is counter-productive on all fronts.

Being an atheist doesn't mean trying to destroy your country's foundations so you can manufacture some false hope of utopian equality for everything imo.

True, but Christianity doesn't really teach that, either.

I find liberalism just as reprehensible as the bible thumpers who try to convert me on almost a weekly basis during my lunch break.

Well, I don't try to convert anyone (outside of cc forums, anyway ), but I am not afraid of the title "liberal". I think you, at least know something of what it really means (as opposed to phattscotty and jay to whom it is simply "not me=bad"). Ironically enough, it is not so long ago that holding up these very same beliefs got me firmly labeled a "conservative". Labels pretty much mean nothing.

[silvanricky]

yeah, that's not the first time I've seen someone twist that phrase

Yeah, and you wouldn't be the first with lack of understanding.

Jay, have you gone mental? I was agreeing with you that he was twisting what that part of the Bible meant.

[jay_a2j]

yeah, that's not the first time I've seen someone twist that phrase

Yeah, and you wouldn't be the first with lack of understanding.

Jay, have you gone mental? I was agreeing with you that he was twisting what that part of the Bible meant.

Sorry Thought you were talking to me.

[PLAYER57832]

What have I said that is delusional?

everything that you have ever said in the course of this arguement.

Also, let me try to solve at least one problem here. It says somewhere in the Bible, I don't know exactly where altough I will look, that one day for God is equal to 1,000 years of human time. So it took 6,000 years for the Earth to be made.

And what I believe is that God made the Earth. Then, populated the Earth with all thses different forms of animals. Humans were the last creatures that God created. So, is it possible that God created all the animals by evolution, then made man, again through evolution. This view satisfies both the explanation from the Bible and from science.

EDIT: turns out to be in 2 Peter 3:8

"like" 1000 years. A day to God is LIKE 1000 years. It is not a set number.

Now you are getting it!

To the people of the time, "one thousand" was an extremely large number, about the largest they could concieve. The term "thousands" was used about like we use "millions" or "millions and millions" today. That is, when we say there are "millions of stars", we actually mean "more than we can count". So, too, was this reference used to mean that "God's day" was a time period "greater than we can count".

In other words, Genesis is definitely not meant to refer to 6000 years or any other set period of time. The creation happened over a very, very long period of time. That, along with the order given is exactly as evolution declares, but not creationism.

Per the "each per his kind". Your theories don't account for anywhere near all of the animals and plants we have, nor does it truly account for the disbursal patterns we see. Evolution does.

Again, is evolution necessarily 100% accurate.. more and more it is seeming that might be the case, but it is not yet 100% prove, no. However, young earth creationism is absolutely proven false already.

How did He populate the Earth with all these different animals? Did He create 1 life form and everything else evolved from that or did he create each animal individually?

If he created them from other animals, he STILL created them individually. the difference is the process, not the result.

Again, read the words, not the "extras" you seem to think "have" to be applied to the words.

[Lionz]

Player,

Can you help me understand Genesis 1:11-19 and Genesis 2:5 if you claim that the sun existed before earthly vegetation and claim that He caused it to rain on earth before earthly vegetation?

By the way, where did that aliens or angels sentence or whatever come from? What if fallen angels are going to show up and masquerade as human ancestors and benevolent primate evolving aliens?

[jay_a2j]

What if fallen angels are going to show up and masquerade as human ancestors and benevolent primate evolving aliens?

Then boy is she going to be fooled!

[tzor]

Can you help me understand Genesis 1:11-19 and Genesis 2:5

It would be exceptionally difficult to help you understand. First you need to know that there are two creation stories in Genesis. The first story is 1:1-31, 2:1-3. The second story is 2:4-25. The second story is older than the first. The notion that the second story proceeds chronologically after the first story is something that is going to lead you to a lot of confusion.

[pimpdave]

So tzor, you equate the choice you make to tithe with the lack of choice you have to pay taxes.

See, you choose to support pederasty with your tithe. That makes you complicit in the crime.

[AAFitz]

Player,

Can you help me understand Genesis 1:11-19 and Genesis 2:5 if you claim that the sun existed before earthly vegetation and claim that He caused it to rain on earth before earthly vegetation?

Well, is it helpful to know that most plants use sunlight to exist, thereby making it a very slight leap of logic to assume the sun was created, before the plants which require it were made?

I admit, the God you describe hardly confines himself to logical things from your description, but still, I woudnt think he would be an GADD sufferer.

[bradleybadly]

Anybody else think it's totally awesome that Tzor's avatar is oddly similar (as far as the pose) to the Gary Busey avatar donned by Pimpdave?

[Lionz]

Tzor,

Where is there a contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2? A slide here that sums things up nicely maybe. http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/slid ... de0155.htm

AAFitz,

Plants existed just a yom earlier than the sun and there was light before the sun anyway perhaps. Can Player find a version of Genesis 1:11-19 that doesn't suggest the sun was created after plants regardless of how yom can be defined and what you think is illogical?

[PLAYER57832]

Player,

Can you help me understand Genesis 1:11-19 and Genesis 2:5 if you claim that the sun existed before earthly vegetation and claim that He caused it to rain on earth before earthly vegetation?

Well, is it helpful to know that most plants use sunlight to exist, thereby making it a very slight leap of logic to assume the sun was created, before the plants which require it were made?

I admit, the God you describe hardly confines himself to logical things from your description, but still, I woudnt think he would be an GADD sufferer.

Also, that bit about "let there be light" came first.

[PLAYER57832]

What if fallen angels are going to show up and masquerade as human ancestors and benevolent primate evolving aliens?

Then boy is she going to be fooled!

No, that would be proof of evolution. Not human evolution, perhaps, but evolution.

[Lionz]

Masquerading fallen angels would be proof of evolution? There are angels who are going to show up and try to deceive you with lies having to do with aliens and evolution maybe.

[PLAYER57832]

Tzor,

Where is there a contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2? A slide here that sums things up nicely maybe. http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/slid ... de0155.htm

AAFitz,

Plants existed just a yom earlier than the sun and there was light before the sun anyway perhaps. Can Player find a version of Genesis 1:11-19 that doesn't suggest the sun was created after plants regardless of how yom can be defined and what you think is illogical?

Light and dark came first. I did go through it before, but no, cannot be bothered to answer you right now.

[tzor]

So tzor, you equate the choice you make to tithe with the lack of choice you have to pay taxes.

See, you choose to support pederasty with your tithe. That makes you complicit in the crime.

But I do have a choice.

I'll let you think of how it is possible not to pay property taxes.

[tzor]

Tzor,

Where is there a contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?

Genesis 1 has the animals created first; then man. (There is a reason for this as Genesis 1 orders things by heirarchy, the various domains, the rullers of those various domains and finally man.) The animals were all created by the "word" of God. Men and women are created at the same time with a clear mandate of procreation.

Genesis 2 has the animals created after man but before the woman, in a quest to find a companion for the man. He did this by hand. He then created woman from man and then threw in procreation only because one came from the other.

It's also hard to understand Genesis 2 without understanding all the wordplay involved.
2:7 There is a play on words in Hebrew between adam ("man") and adama ("ground").
2:23 There is a play on the similar-sounding Hebrew words ishsha ("woman") and ishah ("her man, her husband").

[DangerBoy]

It's hardly "my" view, its more like the most prevalent and long-standing view of the Bible.
Try reading even one of the links I provided. The thing is, my view IS what most Bible scholars say. But, you would have to look outside young earth sites to know that. And, of course, you will be discouraged from doing that lest you "be contaminated".

I give up. You are so enraged with young earth creationists that no matter how many times I tell you I'm not one of them you continue act like I am. You've deluded yourself with this addiction of yours to go after them. I honestly pity you for real. The young earthers are wrong but at least they're not as obsessed as you are.

[PLAYER57832]

It's hardly "my" view, its more like the most prevalent and long-standing view of the Bible.
Try reading even one of the links I provided. The thing is, my view IS what most Bible scholars say. But, you would have to look outside young earth sites to know that. And, of course, you will be discouraged from doing that lest you "be contaminated".

I give up. You are so enraged with young earth creationists that no matter how many times I tell you I'm not one of them you continue act like I am. You've deluded yourself with this addiction of yours to go after them. I honestly pity you for real. The young earthers are wrong but at least they're not as obsessed as you are.

Whether you believe the young earthers or not, your assertion that what I have said is not what the Bible says is the same argument they use, incorrectly. It is very much contradicted by many Bible scholars, both modern and historical. I referenced these. Yet, you still insist that this is something I have somehow cooked up, that I am somehow trying to change the Bible.

I am saying that what a lot of people in this thread believe is the real distortion, is truly not the historical view. And yes, I am obsessed. When children are being taught lies, which they are, and it directly impacts my way of life, my employment, my ability to live without war, etc., then yes, I become obsessed. And those things are all the result of poor science education. Not solely do to that, but to a large extent.

[DangerBoy]

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah I hate Henry Morris Blah Blah Blah young earth creationists suck Blah Blah Blah Blah I'm an evolution expert Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah right wing conspiracy Blah Blah Blah Blah Obama's the best evah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Bible is what I say it is Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah if you REALLY knew anything about evolution Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah we must stop young earth creationists Blah Blah Blah evangelicals are liars Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah fundamentalists are wrong and I'm right Blah Blah Blah Blah nobody can ever refute me cause evolution is my field of study Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Jay, you know nothing Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah My views are all mainstream Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ICR is the devil Blah Blah Blah Blah true Christians believe in evolution Blah Blah Blah that has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I wrote, NOTHING Blah Blah Blah Blah unite to save science from young earth believers Blah Blah Blah Blah